Friday, December 31, 2010

I am very grateful to readers for their continuing support for Looting Matters. Your suggestions and feedback are a huge encouragement - thank you! I look forward to commenting on some of the key issues for 2011 in due course.

Washington paid lobbyist, Peter Tompa, has revealed his misunderstanding of the academic process in his discussion of the invited forum piece on the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) that has appeared in the Papers from the Institute of Archaeology. The Institute of Archaeology is part of University College London (UCL).

Tompa asserted, "Archaeo-blogger David Gill has organized a forum on the PAS". Tompa could have read Brian Hole's editorial where it was stated, "We would like to thank David Gill for accepting our invitation to write the lead article".

Brian Hole, the Journal Manager for PIA, has now commented, "to set the record straight, the forum was indeed organised solely on the initiative of PIA". Indeed Hole notes, "We’re particularly grateful to David Gill for accepting our invitation to write the lead piece". It looks as if Tompa has once again misunderstood the issues; earlier examples can be found in Operation Baklava and Operation Tartuffo (and see here).

Tompa should make an effort to get his facts straight before he makes unfounded claims.

Thursday, December 30, 2010

Ton Cremers has announced that he will be stepping down from moderating the Museum Security Network. Ton has provided an important service in collating a range of news stories and Web 2.0 sources for those of us who research in this area.

An Egyptian coffin was returned to Egypt after being seized in Florida after passing through a gallery in Spain. This Barcelona route also seems to have been used for items removed from Saqqara.

I also suggested that the AAMD needed to address the issue of loans. This was illustrated by the collecting history of the Dioskouroi on loan to New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art. However Maxwell Anderson has given a positive lead over the loan of archaeological material.

There has also been a hearing of CPAC to consider a request from Greece to establish a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

Protests against the sale emerged on social networking sites last week. An online petition was organised by the Nigeria Liberty Forum, which describes itself as a "UK-based Nigerian pro-democracy group".

"They should seek good counsel and refrain from selling the mask," Orobosa Omo-Ojo, an official in the state government of Edo, which contains the modern city of Benin, told the press in Nigeria. "Anything that makes them ignore this call [from] the Edo state government will [make us] use this as a starting point to protect our intellectual properties."

This demonstrates that Sotheby's is responsive to concerns over long-standing cultural property issues.

It has been reported that 15 antiquities, some stolen from the Baghdad Museum, have been seized at Krefeld in Germany. It looks as if those handling the material will escape prosecution.

Germany does not have a good record for handling recently-surfaced antiquities (e.g. Apulian helmet). There have also been concerns that antiquities from Iraq are using Germany as a route to the market.

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

In 2005 a reporter from the LA Times showed the Minneapolis Institute of Arts (MIA) a photograph that linked an Attic red-figured krater to a wider investigation into recently-surfaced antiquities. Now "Culture Monster" at the LA Times has noted (December 21, 2010) the Lee Rosenbaum's coverage of the story.

Questions are being raised about whether the Minneapolis Institute of Arts is coming sufficiently clean about an ancient Greek vase in its collection, which has been linked to antiquities dealers involved in tainted acquisitions by the Getty.

MIA Director, Kaywin Feldman, is probably regretting writing a letter to the New York Times that drew attention to her thinking on cultural property. And her position is important because she is also President of the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD).

But there is another aspect to this story. The krater is reported to have been acquired by the MIA on the recommendation of Michael Conforti, then head curator at the museum. Conforti is a former president of the AAMD and is an advocate of licit markets for antiquities (see also here). Does the acquisition of the Minneapolis krater reflect on his curatorial position?

Rosenbaum also draws attention to the AAMD position ("get tough stance") on the proposed MOU with Greece. The AAMD continues to advocate a surely discredited policy of licit antiquities formulated by Conforti among others (and see here).

Is it accurate that Conforti recommended the acquisition of the MIA krater? If that is the case, what due diligence searches did he conduct?

And will the MIA disclose the results of the internal enquiry that was apparently launched in 2005?

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Lee Rosenbaum has asked the Minneapolis Institute of Arts (MIA) a series of key questions about the Attic red-figured krater acquired in 1983 reportedly on the recommendation of Michael Conforti ("Transparency Gap: Minneapolis Institute Refuses to Discuss Greek Hot Pot", Culturegrrl December 20, 2010). Her starting point is a letter to the New York Times by Kaywin Feldman, director of the MIA and president of the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD), where she noted "the highest principles of collecting and stewardship of their collections".

Rosenbaum rightly shows that this is not a new story. She links to a statement made by MIA in November 2005 (i.e. over five years ago). She also notes that the MIA confirms that the statement as reproduced is accurate. In other words staff at MIA had been shown an image of the krater by a reporter from the Los Angeles Times.

Readers will be aware that snow is having a major impact in the UK and even Looting Matters is not immune as access to research notes is at present restricted. However an e-trail suggests that I tried to contact MIA in 2007. However I did email Michael Padgett, now at Princeton, who had published a study of the krater ("An Attic Red-Figure Volute Krater", The Minneapolis Institute of Arts Bulletin 66, 1983-86 [1991]). He had noted that "Robert Guy saw the krater on the London market" prior to its purchase. Elsewhere, in an abstract that appeared in the American Journal of Archaeology, he related that the krater had passed through private collections in Switzerland and the United Kingdom. (I have discussed some of the issues in Present Pasts for 2009.)

We also know that the Italian prosecutor has stated in a 2009 interview that he would like to see the krater returned to Italy.

Even after five years of "provenance research" (i.e. working out the collecting history) a representative of the museum stated that "MIA is taking steps to research the krater and for now that's all we can say about it". Does this mean that MIA is only now starting to research the collecting history? And under AAMD guidelines the staff at MIA do not need to be contacted by Italian authorities, but rather they should be proactive and contact the Italians.

Has the time come for the curatorial staff at MIA to resolve the issue?

Monday, December 13, 2010

Last week a German court rejected an Italian claim on a helmet that is alleged to have been removed from an archaeological context in Apulia (Sabine Deckwerth, "Prozess um einen Paradehelm Italien verlangt einen wertvollen antiken Kopfschutz zurück - und zog deshalb vor das Verwaltungsgericht", Berliner Zeitung December 10, 2010). The Italians claim it came from illicit activity in 1993 ("Der hegte einen Verdacht: Dass der Helm aus einer Raubgrabung in Apulien im Jahre 1993 stammt.") The helmet, dating from between 900 and 700 BCE, then passed to the Axel Guttman collection, and after his death in 2001 was offered on the London market (2002). It was spotted in a catalogue by an Italian academic, and in 2004 Italian authorities submitted a claim; the helmet was seized pending the court case.

The German judge has stated that the Italian authorities were unable to demonstrate that the piece had been looted or been able to show when the helmet entered Germany ("Man wisse nicht, ob der Helm tatsächlich aus einer Raubgrabung stammt und wann er von Italien nach Deutschland gelangte"). The court decided to apply a statue of limitation to the case which expired in 2008.

What was the fully documented collecting history for the Apulian helmet?

Saturday, December 11, 2010

In November it was reported that four individuals had been arrested in Spain following looting from a Roman cemetery ("España: descubiertos restos robados de una necrópolis de Córdoba", AFP, November 16, 2010; "Spanish police recover relics from Roman necropolis", AFP November 16, 2010). One of those arrested was a Belgian-Lebanese male who was reported to be linked to the consignment of marble column-base, valued at 150,000 euros, to Christie's in London. The finds recovered included a Roman mosaic, prehistoric axes and 800 Arab and Roman coins. It was said that "police were still searching for the mastermind behind the network".

There seems to have been a development ("Cae una red que expoliaba y subastaba en Internet piezas arqueológicas", EFE Newswire December 10, 2010). It is reported that there have been some 85 arrests in several provinces: Madrid, Sevilla, Córdoba, Jaén, Málaga, Granada and Valencia. This is part of an operation known as "Carolina Mosaico". There have been some 115 searches that have yielded "6.000 monedas romanas y medievales, puntas de flecha, fíbulas de origen romano, pendientes y hebillas visigodas, hachas de piedra pulimentada, estelas con inscripciones en árabe, columnas y exvotos". The network had been supplying objects to buyers in Germany, the United Kingdom and the USA.

The police statement said that some members of the network had been using metal-detectors ("utilizando detectores de metales") and were paid a daily rate (plus expenses) to search specific sites for archaeological material ("Los expoliadores actuaban en comisión de servicio. Se les asignaban un yacimiento y se les pagaban dietas y gastos de transporte").

The group also seems to have been dealing in precious metals. The seizure also included 120 kg in gold and 900,000 euros ("Detienen en Málaga a dos joyeros y a un numismático en una operación contra el expolio", Sur December 11, 2010). Those arrested include a numismatist ("numismático"), as well as German nationals. A number of weapons, including a machine-gun, have been seized.

There is also apparently evidence of a sophisticated workshop producing objects that were passed off as genuine. Members of the network are reported to have made "auto-bids" for objects offered for sale through the internet.

This story should alert any coin dealers who have been buying directly or indirectly from Spain.

Friday, December 10, 2010

A year ago it looked as if the New York antiquities market was in decline. The results from Sotheby's and Christie's this week show that there has been a massive upturn, bolstered by the Antinous at Sotheby's and the Cycladic marble figure at Christie's. Together they accounted for over $40 million (out of $79 million achieved this week).

Over $133 million worth of antiquities have been sold at the two auction houses this year. (The second highest year, 2007, only reached $55 million.)

Sotheby's seems to be well ahead of Christie's in the period from 1999 to 2010.

I have commented before on the appearance of a marble Cycladic figure, attributed to the 'Schuster Sculptor', on the New York market. Max Bernheimer is no doubt relieved to find that the figure fetched a record $16,882,500 yesterday [press release]. Bernheimer is quoted:

Christie's Antiquities Department made history once again, achieving $34 million, the highest total for an Antiquities sale at Christie’s and selling the exceptional Cycladic marble reclining female figure for an amazing $16.8 million, a world auction record for a Cycladic marble figure and the highest price achieved for an ancient work of art ever sold at Christie’s.

The Christie's sale fetched $34,092,875, a little behind Sotheby's at $45 million. But this means some $79 million worth of antiquities were sold at two New York auction-houses this week.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

I am grateful to Lee Rosenbaum of Culturegrrl for her comment on Kaywin Feldman's letter to the New York Times (December 7, 2010) on the return of material from New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art to Egypt. Feldman is president of the Association of Art Museum Directors and director of the Minneapolis Institute of Art. She was responding to a NYT editorial, "Repatriating Tut" (November 29, 2010), that drew attention to Hawass' attempts to reclaim the mummy mask acquired by the St Louis Art Museum.

Egypt has rightly been demanding that governments and museums return fundamental parts of its patrimony that have disappeared from ancient troves. It has had no success thus far with a 3,200-year-old burial mask at the Saint Louis Art Museum, a bust of Nefertiti in Germany, or the Rosetta Stone at the British Museum.

Hawass takes the view that the mask was removed from one of the archaeological stores in Saqqara.

Feldman claimed to be "taken aback" by the editorial, and wrote "to stress that American art museums responsibly manage their collections of ancient art from other countries and cultures". She claimed that members of the AAMD "subscribe to the highest principles of collecting and stewardship of their collections". Yet it has to be remembered that at least five AAMD members (Boston's MFA; Cleveland Museum of Art; Malibu, J. Paul Getty Museum; New York's MMA; Princeton University Art Museum) have returned antiquities to Italy. Feldman claims that all the other 199 members of the AAMD would do the same as the MMA if research showed that there was a question over an acquisition.

Feldman is no doubt contemplating the photographic evidence of one of the Attic kraters in her own collection. Just in case Feldman is unaware of what to do:

If a member museum, as a result of its continuing research, gains information that establishes another party’s right to ownership of a work, the museum should bring this information to the attention of the party, and if the case warrants, initiate the return of the work to that party, as has been done in the past. In the event that a third party brings to the attention of a member museum information supporting the party’s claim to a work, the museum should respond promptly and responsibly and take whatever steps are necessary to address this claim, including, if warranted, returning the work, as has been done in the past.

In other words, Feldman needs to contact the Italian authorities ("the museum should bring this information to the attention of the party") and investigate the claim.

Of course Minneapolis is not alone in failing to respond to photographs of recently-surfaced antiquities. Take the Minoan larnax in one North American university collection (and AAMD member).

Is this what Feldman interprets as "the highest principles of collecting and stewardship"? Does she understand the issues relating to recently-surfaced antiquities? Would she be better advised to remain silent?

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

The results of today's sale of antiquities at Sotheby's have been released (see also Clarence Day collection results). Over $45 million worth of antiquities were sold over the last two days, of which $12 million were Egyptian antiquities. It looks as if the market is growing with over $63 million worth of antiquities sold at Sotheby's this year.

Since 1998 some $64 million worth of Egyptian antiquities have been sold at Sotheby's, representing approximately one fifth of sales. Some 65% of Egyptian antiquities surfacing on the market through Sotheby's in the same period do not appear to have a documented collecting history pre-dating 1973 (the date of the AIA declaration). Approximately 95% of the Egyptian antiquities do not have a recorded find-spot.

... why should we pay a treasure hunter 1000 times more than an archaeologist to dig up an object? Even to my politician, it seems pretty obvious that new finds like this year’s Crosby Garrett Roman helmet need to be in a museum where people can see them; and equally obvious that the sums of money paid to treasure hunters are as absurd as their public adulation. Two million pounds for the helmet and three for the Staffordshire hoard – these are sums that could keep a small museum going for several years.

There is a huge debate in the United Kingdom about the value of Arts and Humanities. Craver concludes his editorial with this:

Archaeology is in the business of understanding the climate, the soil, society, religion, conflict, commerce, living together: no minor matters. It is as important as every other science, from medicine to space travel, and its findings have a permanent value. Whatever the future brings, let’s hang on to this principle: the true currency of archaeology is knowledge; that’s our gold standard, valid everywhere.

I am grateful to Paul Barford for drawing my attention to this editorial.

The sale of the Clarence Day collection took place at Sotheby's yesterday (December 7, 2010) with a staggering $36,769,250 achieved [results].

The bust of Antinous, lot 9, fetched $23,826,500 (estimate $2-3 million). The marble was found at Banias (Caesarea Philippi) by M. Pérétié, Chancellor of the French Consulate, Beirut (1879-1882). It then has a well documented collecting history (and even passed through the hands of Robin Symes).

A green porphyry sphinx, lot 25, fetched $5,234,500 (estimate $800,000-$1,200,000). It had surfaced through Hagop Kevorkian, New York, and was "probably acquired before World War II".

A polychrome ushabti, lot 27, achieved $1,314,500 (estimate $200,000-300,000). It was known from a Cairo collection in the 1920s.

The Cycladic figure, attributed to the Rogers sculptor (Lot 6), fetched $332,500 only just within the estimate ($300,000-500,000).

Saturday, December 4, 2010

I have noted earlier the forthcoming sale of a Cycladic marble figure attributed to the 'Schuster Sculptor'.

Max Bernheimer of Christie's has spoken in a short video about the forthcoming auction of the reclining figurine:

G. Max Bernheimer, International Head of Antiquities showcases a Cycladic marble figure, one of the few sculptures attributed to the Schuster Master. The idol is one of the most iconic sculptural types to have survived from antiquity and is the highlight of Christie's Antiquities sale in New York on 9 December.

Bernheimer seems so out of touch with Cycladic scholarship that he still uses the now obsolete nomenclature. I have noted elsewhere:

One change in G-G's approach has been the abandonment of the term 'Master' in favor of 'Sculptor' (though still in upper case). In G-G's earlier work, she explained: 'The term master is used throughout ... to denote a craftsman who was thoroughly competent in his profession although not necessarily highly skilled or capable of producing masterpieces' (SC, p. 62). The use of this term for Cycladic had been challenged: it may be appropriate for the language of 'high art' but not for what is likely to have been a humble craft (GC, pp. 651-52). G-G reports that her methodology and terminology were not borrowed from Morelli or Berenson, or from Beazley -- the obvious close precedent for identifying 'Masters' amongst the makers of ancient Greek artefacts; she reverts to what she now considers to be more art-historically neutral language (pp. xv-xvi).

The auction catalogue entry continues to overlook Pat Getz-Gentle's attribution of 16 figures to the Sculptor.

Those interested in the issues surrounding Cycladic figures can explore some of the issues in:

I am grateful to a reader for pointing out that Catherine Duazo's article on acquisitions by the Princeton University Art Museum has been updated. It now states:

In June 2010, the Italian government accused the Princeton University Art Museum’s antiquities curator, J. Michael Padgett, of acquiring nearly two dozen Italian artifacts for the museum that were the property of the Italian government. The University conducted an internal investigation and is now waiting for the Italian government's response.

It should be noted that the New York Times disclosed the Italian papers in June 2010.

There is an additional note at the end of the article:

Correction: An earlier version of this story stated that J. Michael Padgett was accused of illegally donating artifacts to the Princeton University Art Museum when, in fact, he allegedly assisted in the artifacts' acquisition from an alumnus.

This story is about the due diligence process conducted by a curatorial member of staff at the Princeton University Art Museum. And the correction is misleading in that the report that appeared in The New York Times included loans as well as acquisitions.

The New York Times recently reported that Italian authorities are investigating Edoardo Almagià ’73 for illegal trafficking in antiquities. The Times cited a document written by Italian authorities alleging that the former antiquities dealer loaned, donated, and sold ancient artifacts to the Princeton University Art Museum through curator Michael Padgett, who also is under investigation.

What are the fully documented collecting histories of the twenty or so disputed pieces? What loans were made? Will Princeton make all this information available via its website? (A model for this would be Boston's Museum of Fine Art where it is extremely easy to find objects derived from Almagià, e.g. Roman portrait acquired in 1991, "By 1991: with Edoardo Almagià, 136 East 56th Street, New York, NY 10022; purchased by MFA from Edoardo Almagià, May 22, 1991"). Will Princeton make available its full due diligence process?

James Steward, the present director of the Princeton University Art Museum, claims:

We ask a very rigorous set of questions about any work of art that hypothetically might enter our collection either as a gift or a purchase ... We really have a tough standard in that regard, and I would say one of the toughest standards in the country.

If such a "rigorous set of questions" have been asked about the twenty or so objects, Princeton University Art Museum has an academic responsibility to make a full disclosure of this information.

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

The Princeton University Art Museum has attracted some attention in recent years. In 2007 the museum returned some items to Italy though it has yet to disclose (unlike Boston's Museum of Fine Art, and the J. Paul Getty Museum) the complete collecting histories for the objects. However it appears that some of the items feature in the Medici Dossier.

More recently, in June 2010, it was reported that the museum has been mentioned in papers relating to Edoardo Almagià, a New York dealer. The appearance of Almagià is not without significance as his name has been linked to objects returned to Italy from the Cleveland Museum of Art. Almagià has responded to the story with an interview. The Princeton curator mentioned in the Italian report has also given an interview.

In June 2010, the Italian government accused the Princeton University Art Museum’s antiquities curator, J. Michael Padgett, of acquiring nearly two dozen Italian artifacts through fraudulent means and illegally donating them to the museum. The University conducted an internal investigation and is now waiting for the Italian government's response.

“There is still no indictment, and there is no investigation of the museum,” explained James Steward, director of the museum. “Beyond that, we’re in a wait-and-see situation.” Steward is the only member of the museum authorized to discuss its acquisition policies, and he declined to elaborate on the internal investigation.

In fact it was the New York Times that reported that the Italian legal case existed.

And what did the internal investigation show? What were the documented collecting histories of the disputed pieces? Could the objects be traced back to the period before 1970?

Duazo talks about the new Princeton acquisition policy.

Lorraine Sciarra, senior University counsel, said in an e-mail that the art museum’s current acquisition procedures have been in place since 2006.

“Princeton University Art Museum has a stringent acquisition policy in keeping with the November 1970 UNESCO agreement regarding the acquisition of ancient works of art or archaeological material,” she explained. “The policy reflects the art museum's commitment to respecting the preservation of every nation's cultural heritage as well as the specific patrimony law of each country of origin.”

But what about the due dilgence process in the 1980s, the 1990s and the early 2000s when the disputed pieces were acquired?

A university art museum like Princeton could be expected to disclose the full collecting histories of the disputed pieces. Why has this information been retained? (And while we are talking about collecting histories, what was the source for the silver gilt plaque acquired by Princeton in 2002?)

FEEDJIT Recommended Reading

Feedback

Some Recommended Books

About Me

David Gill is Professor of Archaeological Heritage and Director of Heritage Futures at the University of Suffolk. He was a Rome Scholar at the British School at Rome and a Sir James Knott Fellow at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. He was subsequently part of the Department of Antiquities at the Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge, and Reader in Mediterranean Archaeology, Swansea University. He holds the Archaeological Institute of America's Outstanding Public Service Award (2012).